Well duh, you always (short term) make more money (short term) when you’re paying fewer employees (short term)! And those (short term) gains will look really good in the future ex-CEO’s resume (and bank account)!
I remember back in all the “controversy” somebody pointed out they have about 5,000 employees. Which is an insane number of employees for a company of their size, so I guess they possibly are making a profit by firing unnecessary stuff?
Looks like from the article they still are losing 125 million dollars net a year. They’re moving towards profitability though, so I’d think these layoffs wouldn’t be necessary? I guess that depends how urgently their investors are requiring their money back.
do investors base their requirements for money on logical criteria or is just ‘more this year than last year’? It seems to me that publicly traded companies led by investors act like children failing the marshmellow test
“I don’t know anything about this but I can conclude they are all dumb”
Not trying to defend in the least bit Unity after their runtime fee debacle, but maybe this is a good first step towards realizing how they can provide their products without screwing over their customers.
I get layoffs suck, but sometimes, companies get a bit bloated out of eagerness to provide a bunch of services and products and need to tone it down a bit.
deleted by creator
What do you mean? Surely any company announcing layoffs will include reductions to executives their pay in the same announcement, proportional to the amount of layoffs. Businesses are ethical and doing otherwise would just make no sense.
I suspect the real problem is that Unity’s revenues and profitability don’t match whatever targets have been set by it’s investors. Unity Technologies lost $921m last year on revenues of $1.39bn. That’s not a great position to be in for a 19 year old company, and with supposedly 2bn people a month supposedly using a Unity powered game every month.
They’re either earning too little, spending too much or both. They’ve tried to increase income, controversially, and now they’re trying to cut costs. Question really is, can this company actually be profitable or is their business model just fundamentally flawed.
